The beginning of a ceasefire: whereto next?
Well - the ceasefire has come into affect. At the present moment, its holding - the next fews days will prove critical whether it is sustainable.
The aftermath of Lebanon War II are being assessed. Some are calling on Halutz or Olmert to resign. A commission of inquiry is likely to be appointed.
I for one, do not think either Halutz or Olmert should resign. What Olmert and the Israeli government need to do is work out what they can learn from the conflict. Where the mistakes were? What are the limits of military power? The last thing Israel needs is elections less than 6 months after the last one.
In my own humble opinion, the following lessons can be learned from the last few weeks:
1. 'Victory' - Israel undoubtedly did achieve some of its objectives regardless of what Hizbollah are saying. Israel did significantly weaken Hizbollah, got the Lebanese govt to send their rather weak army to the south, got the international community involved in that they are now sending a stronger international force. The fact that Hizbollah is not totally destroyed and that Nasrallah is now bragging does not mean Israel did not achieve anything. By the way, I do not think israel should try to assassinate Nasrallah - that will simply just renew the fighting on the border.
2. 'limitations of the military' - military solutions are not the only solutions and are limited - diplomacy in the end of the day is a better approach. This lesson should be learned vis a vis the Palestinians. Olmert needs to recognise the limitations of advice from the IDF and an approach which overemphasises the utility of military action.
3. 'Re-engaging with the Palestinians' - the opportunity to negotiate with Abu Mazen must be taken seriously. Unilateral withdrawal as envisaged by Olmert must be discarded in place of a bilateral approach or used as a very last resort. As Lebanon has shown, the unilateral approach is a risky one.
The aftermath of Lebanon War II are being assessed. Some are calling on Halutz or Olmert to resign. A commission of inquiry is likely to be appointed.
I for one, do not think either Halutz or Olmert should resign. What Olmert and the Israeli government need to do is work out what they can learn from the conflict. Where the mistakes were? What are the limits of military power? The last thing Israel needs is elections less than 6 months after the last one.
In my own humble opinion, the following lessons can be learned from the last few weeks:
1. 'Victory' - Israel undoubtedly did achieve some of its objectives regardless of what Hizbollah are saying. Israel did significantly weaken Hizbollah, got the Lebanese govt to send their rather weak army to the south, got the international community involved in that they are now sending a stronger international force. The fact that Hizbollah is not totally destroyed and that Nasrallah is now bragging does not mean Israel did not achieve anything. By the way, I do not think israel should try to assassinate Nasrallah - that will simply just renew the fighting on the border.
2. 'limitations of the military' - military solutions are not the only solutions and are limited - diplomacy in the end of the day is a better approach. This lesson should be learned vis a vis the Palestinians. Olmert needs to recognise the limitations of advice from the IDF and an approach which overemphasises the utility of military action.
3. 'Re-engaging with the Palestinians' - the opportunity to negotiate with Abu Mazen must be taken seriously. Unilateral withdrawal as envisaged by Olmert must be discarded in place of a bilateral approach or used as a very last resort. As Lebanon has shown, the unilateral approach is a risky one.
posted by SJ at 8:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home